Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You should ask a personal shaila, since the fact that you need it to calm your nerves may be a reason to be matir certain types of music for you.
See the story on pages 202-203 of “In their Shadow” Vol.III (by Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz), for the Gerrer Rebbe’s (The Beis Yisroel) response to this very question.
Does this mean we can start taking box cutters back on flights?
RIP Osama bin Laden, World Hide and Go Seek Champion (2001-2011)
arwsf,
You could have been mispallel for them without adding candles (although no harm done, I guess.)
mbachur,
Yes, but who says it has to mean that?
But if he said the truth then its true that all men are liars in which case his statement would be untrue… Etc etc etc.
That’s not logically correct. A liar is not necessarily someone’s whose every statement is untrue. If it were that way, you’d be right. However, a liar could be someone who sometimes lies and sometimes tells the truth.
binahyeseira,
That “cool thing” I do is called blockquote. The word
blockquoteis inserted instead ofstrongorem. (The uncoded font is enclosed by backticks, the` symbol at the top left of the keyboard.)I didn’t make any of this up, I discovered it right here in the CR.
Generally once you light a certain number you don’t decrease that number.
True. In this case there’s an additional (and more important) reason; to stop lighting those extra candles would probably be hurtful, especially since the relationship between children and their parent’s spouse can often be delicate and sensitive.
I see the one from last night was [really] closed, and the name changed to reflect the nature of the content.
I had addressed a post to binahyeseira which was a casualty of the closing, so I will address a technical issue here.
DY – pba claims that he takes hashkafa and halacha seriously.
Yes, I suppose this thread puts a bit of question mark on that.
i would put that line in BOLD if i knew how, so everyone can see it. unfortunately, the only thing i learned how to do in the CR was to italicize. 🙁
Here’s how to put something in bold:
<strong>Yes, I suppose this thread puts a bit of question mark on that.</strong>results in:
Yes, I suppose this thread puts a bit of question mark on that.
Welcome back.
I never asked a sha’alah, however I am remarried, and I DO light for all my husbands children from his previous marriage.
Even if you asked a shaila now, you would probably be told to keep lighting them once you started.
Does she have a husband? If not, you should try to understand how great a mitzvah you are doing, lock everything up, and grin and bear it.
(Easy for me to say, I’m not the one living through it!)
80,
One difference – if I ask the fellow next to me what to do if I missed Ya’aleh V’yavo, there’s a certain degree of accountability, because I know who he is. An anonymous blogger has nothing to lose if he’s wrong.
I know, I often say what I think the halachah is here, but I don’t expect anyone to follow l’maaseh, and I’ve said that a few times (and in a case where I know I’m right, it’s not my issue anyhow).
I totally agree with you and deiezooger that discussing a halachic issue is different than getting a psak.
Nobody lights for them. For whatever reason, you add one by every birth. You don’t even light for yourself.
You are correct in what you mean, but the wording is a little tricky.
The person lighting IS motzi (see – I transliterated!) her household members, so is, in fact, “lighting for them”. You are, of course, correct that the number of candles does not reflect this at all.
nO PROBLEM
lol (LOL)
If she couldn’t come despite the fact that she would not carry, that would mean that the rabbi felt she couldn’t come because she’s either a rashanta or a bad influence. It then wouldn’t make a difference if she came before Shabbos, on Shabbos, or on Tuesday.
The rabbi must have felt that she would carry something.
the dreaded accidental press of the caps lock key
I get nightmares from it. 🙂
I know the entire story. That was it. My sister was not supposed to invite our other sister because she uses the eruv, whether or not she would carry to come.
I guess theoretically if she showed up before Shabbos, she could come for Friday night dinner.
Those two statements are inconsistent.
i dont believe in capitals
I never knew that grammar was an emunah issue.
icot,
while you’re at it can you help moderator 80 fix the shift button on his keyboard so that he can capitalize?
🙂
SJS,
That makes no sense to me. One is allowed to invite a full fledged mechallel Shabbos to a meal (unless you’re like the guy from “Friday night at the Hockers” 🙂 ), so this would certainly be mutar.
I have a feeling there’s something missing from the story.
What would make sense is if the rabbi who holds it’s asur to carry in that neighborhood forbids you to invite someone who will carry something to your house because of “Lifnei Iver”. This would not be “pre-empting” another rav’s ruling (to address Wolf’s point) because it addresses his own follower.
Actually, I missed that thread
I assume you mean that article, which is discussing the legality of it, as was I.
I was told by an internet employee that piggybacking may slow down a system.
I think it would slow it down noticeably if the user was uploading or downloading large files, but not noticably if just browsing or using email (without large attachments).
SJS,
The rabbi told them not to invite guests who would not be carrying because of that visit, simply because on other occasions they carry in the eruv?
I have a wild theory also. Maybe they pronounced him dead because …gasp… he really is dead.
Probably not, but in this crazy world of ours, you never know.
When I lived in Brooklyn, my BIL and sister’s Rabbi told them they were not allowed to invite guests who used the eruv (even if their Rabbi told them it was mutar).
Because there are legitimate shittos regarding the eruv in Brooklyn (specifically) which hold that it is not a legitimate shitah to be matir it.
The way I see it, two basic opinions have been expressed here:
a) Since she holds it’s asur, it’ wrong for her to ask you to do it
b) Not everyone has the same rov or the same situation, so while for her it may indeed be asur, for you it’s not, so there’s no reason not to download shiurim for her.
This leaves you with two options:
1) Refuse to do it, on the grounds that she’s a hypocrite, and has no right to ask you to do something which is beneath her to do.
You risk losing or at least damaging a friendship, but who needs a friend who treats you like her Shabbos goy!
2) Happily do her this chessed, either because you accept opinion (b), or, even if you personally agree with opinion (a), out of the understanding that she may look at things from the perspective of opinion (b), and in fact not look down at you, but rather see things in a more open-minded manner than that; she has her p’sak, but you have yours and are doing nothing wrong by using the internet.
You will be able to help her obtain valuable Torah as well as important medical information, and undoubtedly, through chessed, increase your friendship.
The choice is yours.
HaleiVi,
We shouldn’t bother answering veteran. He’s just an icon created to entertain members of the CR. 🙂
Now we have to get nasty with each other. The mods will shut down this thread and the title will end up reading:
[closed][closed] How To Close A Topic
HaleiVi, this is for you:
I was told, bsheym Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zatzal, that the source for lighting one candle per child is that it used to be that after childbirth every mother was in the hospital for a minmiumum 10 days.
A similar idea is expressed by the Shu”t M’shaneh Halachos, as quoted by the Sh’miras Shabbos K’hilchasah. This is, in fact brought as proof that even missing b’oneis obligates an extra candle. The Mishna B’rurah doesn’t hold like this, though.
There’s a question on this approach; why would she add another candle for missing because of childbirth since her husband lit, and they were both yotzei?
I would suggest that a minhag might have developed for some, that a woman add an extra candle even if it was an oneis, and even if she was otherwise yotzei.
This would explain why some light extra even if not at fault for missing.
I’ve seen another explanation for the minhag of adding a candle for each child. The gemara in Shabbos says “haragil b’ner havin lei banim talmidei chachamim” (that the mizvah of neros helps one have children who become or marry talmidei chachamim), so as a z’chus, each time a child is born, a candle is added as a hiddur.
According to either of these explanations, a woman would not light according to the number of her husband’s children.
????:
Im Al Hamelech Tov Ve’im
I’m sorry, I’m really bad at reading transliterations. Do you mind typing in ??????
Thanks,
??? ????
🙂
I think this is where I read it.
cherrybim,
Am I to assume that was a joke (based on that old thread)?
I’ve read that it’s legally questionable. There are two aspects to it; using the neighbor’s signal without his consent, and using the internet provider without the company’s consent. As far as the first issue, there’s a theory that since it’s so easy to lock the signal, anyone who doesn’t is by default allowing it. Concerning the second, my IP told me that I am allowed to share service with a neighbor if I want; other providers may not allow it.
My netbook has no place for a CD or DVD…problem?
My guess is no, you can probably download it from the manufacturer’s website.
TikkunHatzot,
I did mean to prevent future attacks. I agree that it would be very odd if they were to capture bin Laden and torture him until he told them where he is.
I believe there would be valuable information to get from him; any specific plans for an attack, and information about how Al-Qaeda is structured, in order to disable it.
I see no reason to add one for your husband; the minhag to add is for children (see the explanations I brought in my lengthly post) and two is anyhow not to represent the man and wife, but rather, ???? ?????.
oomis- that would make sense but not sure why my mother was told to add one then
You might have missed my lengthly post, but in it, I offered two possible explanations.
1) Some hold you even add if it was not your fault.
2) There may be a minhag to do so even if it’s not technically a requirement.
veteran,
If so, Bush would have had him killed.
The extra candle, I was always told, is if she missed the lighting because she forgot, and when she remembered, it was already Shabbos. The permanent additional candle ensures she will not forget again.
That’s what the ???? ????? holds.
I was told, bsheym Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zatzal, that the source for lighting one candle per child is that it used to be that after childbirth every mother was in the hospital for a minmiumum 10 days.
A similar idea is expressed by the ??”? ???? ?????, as quoted by the ????? ??? ??????. This is, in fact brought as proof that even missing ????? obligates an extra candle. The ???? ????? doesn’t hold like this, though.
There’s a question on this approach; why would she add another candle for missing because of childbirth since her husband lit, and they were both ?????
I would suggest that a ???? might have developed for some, that a woman add an extra candle even if it was an ????, and even if she was otherwise ????.
This would explain why some light extra even if not at fault for missing.
I’ve seen another explanation for the ???? of adding a candle for each child. The ???? in ??? says ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? (that the ???? of ???? helps one have children who become or marry?????? ?????), so as a ????, each time a child is born, a candle is added as a ????.
According to either of these explanations, a woman would not light according to the number of her husband’s children.
ayc,
I’m afraid I’d come off even more holier-than-thou than I probably already do; I was just trying to make a point that SJS and oomis have a valid concern.
You got me for a few seconds.
SJS and oomis,
I don’t disagree to the perils of even supposedly “kosher” sites.
Although I normally consider it distasteful when someone bashes this site while on it, I will point out that there are some threads on which I won’t comment because of the content (and some cases in which I did and later regretted it).
It’s still far better than the other junk out there.
enlightenedjew,
Apology accepted (although I took no offense, it was an honest mistake).
I now ask you mechila for not being more clear, and therefore causing insult. (I should have added this to my earlier post).
I think this is very different than two rabbonim with opposite opinions on the kashrus of a chicken or eiruv. In the case, the same rov could tell one individual not to get internet and allow another to get it.
I worked in Washington for 11 years. It would be absolutely impossible to keep such a fraud a secret for more than a few hours: The place is full of leaks and leakers. Conspiracy theorists, give up!
I agree that he’s most likely dead; it would be, as you and others have written, nearly impossible to fake, and the risk of being exposed too great. And, as Dave Hirsch pointed out, it’s too early in the election cycle for that.
I am curious, though, if you consider it a remote possibility that he’s been captured for information. It would make some sense, if he would be caught alive, to feign his death. He still couldn’t release a tape of himself, and only very few people would know the truth. His death (or claim of it) is, IMO, safer than his being captured alive.
I don’t think this is likely, but as an “insider”, I’d like your opinion.
There’s no contradiction. Most rabbonim who aser internet allow it for an individual who needs it. Take, for example, the Lakewood model. The yeshivos in Lakewood do not accept talmidim from homes with internet, unless they have a heter from their rov.
For someone who has it because needs it to utilize it on behalf of someone who does not have it is no problem.
I have done favors for people who don’t have internet, such as helping them sign up for discount programs, and helping with email (although I haven’t been asked except for things which are important.)
I applaud those who don’t have it, and if I can help them keep it that way, I’m glad to do so.
DY, thanks for the ad hominem attack, that really disproved my point. Disingenuous is spelled D-I-S-I-N-G-E-N-U-O-U-S, just like I wrote.
It was a joke, not an attack. Hence the “:)”.